Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 S Review

Introduction

Nikon has spent the last year steadily filling out its Z-mount lens range, and a handful of further optics should expand the line to nine native options by the end of the year. But the Z 35mm F1.8 S is one of a trio of optics unveiled right at the start of the system – and with a classic focal length and usefully wide aperture, its appeal should be broad.

As with the Z Nikkor 50mm F1.8 S that was launched at the same time, Nikon is keen to stress that this isn’t any ordinary 35mm F1.8 lens, but rather one that’s been designed specifically for superior optical performance to match high-resolution sensors, such as the Z7’s (and presumably those of future bodies). It’s neither the smallest lens of its kind nor the cheapest, but being part of a new generation of optics, we should perhaps expect it to deviate a little from what we’re used to.

This is currently the widest prime lens available for the Nikon Z system, although it will soon lose that status to the Z 24mm F1.8 S, on Nikon's roadmap for later this year.

All pictures by Matt Golowczynski unless otherwise noted.

Key specifications

Focal length: 35mm

Aperture range: 8-16 (In 1/3 EV stops)

Filter thread: 62mm

Close focus: 0.25m (0.82ft / 9.8in)

Maximum magnification: 0.19x

Diaphragm blades: 9 (rounded diaphragm)

Hood: HB-89 petal-shaped hood (supplied)

Length / Diameter: approx. 86 x 73 mm (3.4 x 2.9in)

Weight: approx. 370g (approx. 13.1oz.)

Optical construction: 11 elements in 9 groups

In contrast to Canon's cavalcade of pro-grade, big, pricey, fast aperture L-series lenses for its new RF mount, Nikon seems intent on courting enthusiasts with a solid lineup of smallish, fairly affordable (all sub-$1,000 so far) F1.8 primes (plus the more pro-focused Z 24-70mm F2.8 S). With the just-announced Z Nikkor 85mm F1.8 S joining the F1.8 lineup, and the 24mm and 20mm F1.8 both also in the pipeline (the 20mm is slated for 2020), it's clear that Nikon believes F1.8 is a sweet spot.

Nikon cites four factors in particular that should make the Z Nikkor 35mm F1.8 S’s overall optical performance shine. The first is high resolving power, which is credited in part to the optics used but also to a multi-focusing system to keep things consistent wherever you happen to be focusing in the scene.

There’s no Vibration Reduction system in the lens itself, but both current Nikon Z-series bodies offer in-camera stabilization

A pair of extra-low dispersion elements help to banish chromatic aberration, as well as three aspherical lenses to combat spherical aberration and distortion. Those low-dispersion elements are also behind the second claim, namely reduced axial (longitudinal) chromatic aberration, which is often an issue with fast-aperture prime lenses of this sort.

The third claim is superb point reproduction of point light sources at night (ie minimal coma and spherical aberration) while the final claim regards natural bokeh, with nine rounded diaphragm blades in the design to help keep out-of-focus points of light circular. Incidentally, these are the same four claims made for the Z 50mm F1.8 S that was developed and launched at the same time, late last year.

The Z 35mm F1.8 S is sealed against dust and moisture at several key points (shown here in yellow).

Nikon’s venerable anti-reflective Nano Crystal Coat technology has also been employed in order to boost light transmission and minimize flare and ghosting, and this is joined by multi-layered Super Integrated Coating that serves much the same purpose.

There’s no Vibration Reduction system in the lens itself, but both current Z-series bodies (and presumably most if not all future models) have been furnished with their own sensor-based Vibration Reduction systems. In the absence of any VR switch or programmable buttons on the lens barrel, that also means that Vibration Reduction is controlled through the menu (you can’t assign this to any function or customizable buttons).

The lens comes with a petal-shaped hood as standard, and a lens wrap is thrown into the box too.

Comments

As I've suspected the Nikon doesn't improve all that much on the 35/1.8 for F-mount, though I think they come off looking decent compared to Sony here. The standout in this test is the Canon 1.4 II, showing the possibilities still there for DSLR mounts.

Where Nikon has excelled so far on mirrorless is with the mid-range zooms. Everything else as far as I can see is a function of the price point to which it is designed.

Ok.. so now we start seeing lenses for Z6 that have to be at least $500, many like around 1K and upwards!What did the MILC technology do to make the lenses that expensive? Are the mounts made out of Gold?

Its partly the ED &aspherical lenses they are charging so much for. The other reason they are charging that amount are the results you get from it.

Had they just stayed with one measly aspherical lens element like in their G series they would have charged like three hundred only. Now why would they not innovate. Keep shooting with inferior optics then if you're not happy about the price.

Those of us who are of a 'certain age' would be pleased with ANY of the current crop of 35's. Way back then, I never had a lens that I could afford that produced as nice an image as even the worst samples given here.It's a shame that nitpicking has become some harsh.

Way back when you couldn't voice your opinion on current technology and how you were fine with way back when technology to others without leaving the house. Some people call it nit picking, others just want to get the most out of their camera. When you factor in costs it would be silly not to try to get the best you can afford.

Weird. The color rendering is the best I have seen from any 35mm lens but I don't know if it is a bad sample or this if it is by design, until f5.6 this lens is not really sharp, my dangled old sigma art is sharper at f1.8 then this lens over the entire range, and has so much more micro contrast. on the other hand no one is interested in this and in real life the overall look counts and this lens, I mean the color wow, but don'T look 1:1 on the files.

I read this also on other sites, and I belive this ... but the sample images here are lacking this bi - but in the end this doesn't matter - because the overall look from the nikon lens produced images is so good

I'll quote from the article for you:"Because the Z 35mm f1.8 S offers such good cross-frame sharpness at wide apertures, it's possible to shoot at maximum aperture for effect, and not worry too much about the usual nasties, like haze and corner sharpness.,"Perhaps you're referring to another lens.

Fast lens is expected to allow use of faster shutter speed to stop motion, or get usable shutter speed in low light scenarios. And if you can't get a fast enough shutter speed, you end up to have photo with blur (motion blur) what is then not wanted as you want the photo to be sharp.

And if the lens can't provide sharp photo when subject is wanted to be sharp, then it is not a good one.

But question is always about the level of the softness. Is it a optical testing level, pixel peeping level, a knowledge level or is it soft in actual final photographs. If the problem doesn't pop-up in the final photos, then it doesn't matter what does any other test etc say.

@Relaxed Which cheaper rivals are significantly sharper? Check out the comparison tool. The Sony and Nikon images are comparably sharp wide open. What you will see is significantly more chromatic aberration in the Sony 35mm f1.8 images. Check out the edges of the buildings in the top left of the image. Nikon may have sacrificed a little sharpness but it's far better corrected.

@FrezeissIs the Sony 35 1.4 less expensive? Cause that lens is a dog. As far as the Nikon Z 35 1.8S and the Sony 35 1.8 are concerned. The Nikon is far sharper edge to edge, and has far less chromatic aberration, You mention that you can easily remove coma, well, I can easily increase sharpness in post as well.

I said LoCA not coma, totally different stuff but re Nikon and Sony 1.8 offering theyre kinda the same. People is not gonna sway in either direction because of quality differences.

Saying Zeiss 35/1.4 is a dog is like saying Nikon 58/1.4 is a dog. The Zeiss greatest strength is shooting f/1.4-2.8 at 2-4 meters, the rendering is sublime. Neither Nikon, Sony 1.8 lens will touch it. OTOH if you shoot landscape at Infinity, why bother with a specialized 1.4 lens? Nikkor 105/1.4 is less sharp than Sigma but Nikkor has more pleasant rendering, Nikkor is a dog...? No, not at all.

As someone has already noted above, not many utilize a wide open f/1.8 to shoot at near infinity. Judging by dpreview’s article this lens is subpar in the center compared to its rivals. This is somewhat contradicted by other reviews— leading to my suspicion this lens might not be a valid sample.

My Z 35/1.8 on the Z7 is visibly sharper at all equal apertures than my Sigma 35mm Art at the border and in the corners. In the center both were comparble good. At f/5.6 and f/8 both lenses are on par.

So I assume the sample of the 35/1.8 Z tested here was not the best available...

Frezeiss: "The Zeiss greatest strength is shooting f/1.4-2.8 at 2-4 meters, the rendering is sublime."

I'm genuinely curious about this - do you have any links to examples showing this sublime rendering, or better yet, comparative examples showing how it's better than others? My experience with the lens is that bokeh performance is rather poor, as you can see here.

It's better than the 35/1.8 in the corners, though, where the 35/1.8 has hard-edged bokeh that can make it appear busy. Also, some quick side-by-sides show the transition zone of the 35/1.4 to be smoother (things go out-of-focus faster), though the inordinate amount of LoCA makes it difficult to appreciate.

What I see is: from 1.8 to 2.8 is less sharp than canon and sony, but from 4 to 8 is more sharp and clean and gives the best picture of all four, reaching the resolution and clean image which both canon and sony do not achieve. You can notice this looking at road signs or anywhere. Plus very nice, with individual charakter, out of focus rendering.

I disagree a little bit about the rating of the Nikkor Z 35mm. This lens being not quite an outstanding performer like its sibling Z 50mm is still ahead in this 4 lenses comparison. When it comes to sharpness it's not behind the competitors and as far as CA is concerned it performs better than the others here. Especially the "excellent" (DPreview) Sony FE 35mm f1.8 seems to have a serious CA problem with plants, leaves before light background and if it's not easily corrected in PP or in-camera, you won't buy it for landscape and garden photography (Look at the bottom right hand with leaves and light roof - even at f8 or f11).BTW, what a poor performer the lens with the Zeiss label is in the sharpness comparison!Doesn't the Nikkor Z 35mm deserve a higher rating or at least a Silver Award for its performance all in all?

I think it's because Nikon doesn't fly out these folks out to paid nice hotels or spend several hundred thousands in advertising blitzes like Sony. It's kinda like paying for advertising on these sites.

"I think it's because Nikon doesn't fly out these folks out to paid nice hotels or spend several hundred thousands in advertising blitzes like Sony. It's kinda like paying for advertising on these sites."

Wow. That's a lot of wrong to fit in just two sentences :) The truth is that had the Z 35mm F1.8 S been a little cheaper, maybe its LoCA performance had been a bit closer to the Z 50mm F1.8 S, it would have easily earned a silver (or even gold) award. But it doesn't blow us away in the same way that the 50mm did. It's still a cracking lens though, as the sample gallery hopefully demonstrates.

@Barney Britton you are either not aware of what is going on (which I doubt) or are full of s**t. I have been working for years now in advertising industry running some of the biggest campaigns in the whole of Europe.

If Sony wanted to present anything to you, without expecting any warm feelings, they could organise a short presentation even in your own office.

Being flown to different places, wined and dined is exactly what my industry does when it wants everything to run smoothly and to leave a positive and lasting impression. We have been regularly taking some of the clients and partners to nice holidays to "say thank you" or "to build relationship".

The biggest irony is that most of that relationship building/appreciation activity can always be done during a single meeting in a boardroom.

All brands do it, not only Sony. I know, as for the many years now this was my life.

Some of us do actually know how the business works these days. So please, stop with your b****hit.

@BarneyBritton oh, but I think I am correct as I know it from my own experience.

You will have to do a bit more banning if you don’t like someone speaking the truth. By the way, sending an email stating that I am trolling as an explanation for ban is pathetic and childish. Try harder.

I don’t mind you people being pampered by corporations but at least have decency and honesty to call it what it is and stop pretending that this is not the case. Or don’t mention it at all. As I stated, it is a common practice not only in camera industry. And I personally believe that it affects the way the brands are perceived by the reviewers.

After all it is so much more pleasant to discuss new cameras in Hawaii staying in 5 star hotels with food and wine rather than in stuffy office right? People are a bit more forgiving in that environment.

And we all know that next time when e.g Sony is organising these “trips” Dpreview staff would love to be on the guest list.

Sony want their photo gear to be regarded with favor, that's for sure. That's why they present journalists with a few comfortabe holidays on Hawaii. Whether Sony products on DPreview therefore are given a higher rating than they deserve - well, that's an open question, isn't it? As to the comparison between Nikon Z lens and new Sony FE lens: In the center the Sony seems to be sharper than the Nikon from f1.8 on. Out of the center the Nikon betters the Sony. Is the aperture stopped down a bit, both lenses show similar sharpness in the center. The Sony is prone to CA, the Nikon isn't. Nikon's lens sealing is said to be more effective than Sony's. But then Sony's color rendering might be more pleasing due to be on the warm side. Some may prefer the character of the Sony lens, others may love the Nikon lens because of its balanced performance all in all. I think the main point is: Both lenses stand for a new generation of glass with an optical performance never seen before.

Well, these tests put me off a little bit. I have two Z lenses and I really like them. Small, sharp, silent - almost perfect. I find them to be way better than the older models. But this one is "not as good as the 50, but $250 more expensive". That's not OK.

DPR writes: "Unlike the current zooms in the series, this is an all-metal ring rather than a rubber one..."

The rubber ring signifies zoom ring. Only zoom rings are rubber. The control rings are always metal with the same type of fine grooves on them. Both on the zooms and on the primes. Nikon are being consistent and this should be mentioned as a positive.

This is typical great Nikon ergonomics where because of the different materials I intuitively know which ring is which when I switch between my zoom and my primes.

After spending some time looking at the comparison on a big screen I draw the conclusion that a comparison is difficult. Overall I do like the balance of the Nikkor the best. The Canon may be better, but it's a much bigger, heavier and more expensive lens. The Canon is sharper in the upper left, but if one looks in the lower left, the white car and street signs, the Nikkor is sharper there. The Nikkor has lower contrast than the others until f2.8 when it displays similar contrast. It isn't less sharp though, at least not to my eyes. It's just the softer contrast wide open makes it appear less sharp but the detail is there. In other words it doesn't resolve any less. The purple fringing on both the Sony lenses is really intense and the Sony f1.4 lens isn't really in the same league as the other three.

Lateral chromatic aberrations are corrected with 1 click, not sure what's the big deal there. If a first-party lens does not exhibit any lateral chromatic aberrations at all, more likely than not -- the Company simply made that click for you, and baked the corrections into the "raw" file.Longitudinal chromatic aberrations are another matter. I would have hoped that all that ED glass was there to address the LoCA... Apparently not.

Viewing the full size files on a large calibrated monitor, the Nikon shows more fine detail resolution in the street signs (bottom left) and advertising hoarding (on the roof of the yellowish building) and the Sony shows more detail in what seem to be balconies in the central distant tower blocks.This seems to indicate the lenses were focussed at different distances.

The Sony image has more than half a stop less exposure making an exact comparison challenging.The images were not centrally aligned. The left hand shows a little more on the Nikon image - and around 10% more on the right hand compared to Sony.The clear difference in angle of view at a near infinity focus distance surely merits specific comment.

As to recommending a UV filter - fair enough - except that Nikon has not made UV filter for around 15 years, Canon advised restricting using UV to black and white film last century - and some UV's restrict colour at the purple/magenta end of colour gamut.

The differences you see may not be caused by a focusing error but by the way different aberrations are handled and sample variation. In the centre the slight loss in contrast and moderate haze of the Nikon could simply be down to spherical aberration I think, for example (not necessarily a bad thing for bokeh). Same goes for the Canon 35 1.8.Off centre a litany of factors come into play, the Sony and Nikon are quite fundamentally different. I also think that Dpreview’s sample of the Nikon 35 (or one of them) could be slightly misaligned and weaker on the right side, more specifically bottom right quadrant, after looking at both comparisons already made and images like sample no 37. Emphasis on « could », I don’t know.

Surprised that your IQ widget doesn't include the Canon RF 35/1.8, which you *have* actually reviewed. But at least I can make the comparison on your widget on the Canon's review page. Which shows, as per your comments on the Canon review page, that it is much of a muchness between the two. Except the Canon costs $499. And does macro.

Hard to compare a lens with a 30MP sensor vs these at 42-46MP. But you do have the RF review that shows the Nikon to exceed the Canon in sharpness and LoCA. So, given the comparison points against the Nikon in this review, I think you can draw your own conclusions.

Namely that the Canon falls behind all these lenses in optical quality save for in comparison to the worst of the bunch: the 35/1.4 ZA.

I think Leicalika meant the price was just not expensive enough to warrant attention. $3799 would have gotten his attention, but for that they'd need a better plaque on the lens, maybe a pure gold 24 carat S.

@BeavertownYou mean like the Nikon 70-200 FL E 2.8Or how about the Z 24-70 2.8S, Which all reviews are touting as the new reference 24-70Or maybe you meant the Nikon Z 50 1.8S that outperforms the Sigma from center to edge, even when the Sigma is stopped down.Even this Z 35 1.8S is sharper across the entire field edge to edge and has better performance than the Sony 35 1.8 or the Sony 34 1.4 with regards to lens Coma.I don't know where Beavertown is, but stay there.

This lens is plenty sharp but that being said “super sharpness “ isn’t always a desired trait . From what I’d read in another article that Nikon is working on the total image quality. And one quality being image rendering being more organic. Many Sony images look very sharp but nonorganic. They appear very digital. I think we will see the very organic “look” especially in their prograde f/1.4 line whenever that comes about . So the rendering of transitions in the Nikon lenses may be a touch softer than with other lenses.This is what I had read in another article a while back . Whether it is true or not I do not know .

Sharper wide open with less CA compared to other brands. Its pretty self explanatory really. The lens will sells itself. Theres no need for multi million dollar advertising blitzes like flying folks out for maximum exposure.

For those curious about the visible field of view different between the Sony and Nikon in the widget, I did a bit of quantifying.

Using the corrected JPEGs displayed by the widget, I normalized for pixel count (down to 5304 px wide), and then overlaid the images to match the same field of view.

The Nikon image ends up being 5304 px, and the Sony is (approximately) 5024 px. That's a crop factor of 1.055x, so by that measure, the Sony is approximately a 37mm lens, assuming the Nikon is exactly 35mm.

It's also possible the Sony is a true 35mm, and the Nikon is a 33.2mm lens. Or that the Nikon is a 34mm lens and the Sony is a 35.9mm lens.

It's also worth mentioning that the Nikon has a narrower field of view that the Sony 35mm/f1.4 shown in the widget. The framing on the Canon is a little bit off (displaced left), so it's harder to compare at a glance

It's a minor difference, regardless. You'd need to be really persnickety to ever notice it in practice in the real world.

Really, persnickety?I would say this is a big difference as shown by Horshack's work below...and begs the question, if the Nikon and Canon are showing the same field of view, why is the Sony 35 1.8 cropped; is it possible that this is to better correct at the expense of being a true 35mm?https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-dpQNfHR/0/7692b013/O/i-dpQNfHR.gif

I tried to refine it a bit by using the Auto-Blend Layers in PS, but it distorts the image slightly to better pixel-match, so I don't end up with a rectilinear image which is obviously not easier to measure.

Depending on the exact method, the crop factor ends up being 1.049-1.056x. Making the Sony a 36.7-37.0mm lens, again assuming the Nikon is exactly 35mm.

It shouldn’t be a surprise, as your figures show it’s pretty standard for every lens maker. Lens makers have rounded up or down on the focal lengths of their lenses as long as I’ve been reading lens reviews which is a very, very long timeAnd I should probably warn you that they generally round off the aperture as well, most f/1.4 lenses are really f/1.7 or even less.

Alkso - the canon 35mm F1.4 is more than twice as expensive and twice as heavy. In this context the remarks about the Nikon being heavy and expensive are plain silly.There is an impression lingering from the review, that the Canon 1.4 is "better" all over. Nah. @ F2 the Nikon S has much less CA than either the Canon 1.4 @ F2 or the previous Nikon 35 mm F.1.8 G lens. Nikon shooters care more about Sigma and Tamron and the Nikon has slightly less CA than these competitors. However @ f1.8 and 2, both these competitors are significantly sharper across the field than Nikon. @ F4 all are the same. Same song for vignetting.

You picked the Canon f2 with IS in your DXO link, which according to DXO is sharper and cheaper than the Z (and has IS), and then you seem to pick on the EF 1.4 (L II I assume), which is simply playing in a differente league (price/weight/performance/aperture) Not sure what you are trying to say, other than justifying your brand choice.

The Z is a nice lens + the new ML tax, that's all _I_ get from the review.

"Compared to its peers, the Nikon has lower sharpness and contrast - seen as a general haze over the image - wide open relative to the Sony FE 35/1.8, as well as the benchmark 35mm prime from Canon." => if Nikon plans to engineer a comeback, they need to start releasing lenses that outclass the competition, or at least perform comparably at a much lower cost (or much smaller size), but this lens is being outclassed, it's less sharp, focuses slowly, and is bigger and heavier and costs more ... Imagine potential customers looking at the different systems and interested in a good 35 1.8 lens, why would they choose the Nikon one? I love Nikon and want them to succeed, because we all need competition, but it's not looking good. Their next lens is the 24 f1.8, right? How is that one going to compare against the Sony 24 f1.4? The IQ will be worse, that's for sure, it's probably going to be a bit cheaper, but is it going to be even smaller? Not sure. Any ideas how Nikon can turn things around?

@ polypYou do realize that the Nikon outperforms all of the Sony versions in edge to edge sharpness and lack of coma don't you?I can sharpen up the Z 35 a little or stop it down a bit, but the purple fringing on both Sony lenses is atrocious for modern lenses!I can see you're a Sony shooter so I'll give you points on a good attempt at trolling.

Unless you have a money tree in your garden - price does matter. It is piece of cake to make a fantastic lens at a high price point. So in the real world, for us amateurs the only relevant comparison is one based on price vs performance. I am surprised that DPR has neither the Tamron 35mm nor the Sigma 35mm in their comparison tool. I could not care less about Sony or Canon performance since I will never buy those brands, but I do care about Tamron, Sigma, Samyang, Laowa performance since I own all these brands. They all have less CA than the Canon "benchmark" 1.4 - just teasing my Canon friends now :-)

@NCB - yes if history can teach us a lesson, it is that the Nikon 24mm F1.8 AF-S G lens is already an awesome 24mm lens @355g @700 Euro vs Sony 24mm F1.4 @ 445g and 1500 Euro. To get to F1.4 there have to be compromises on either weight (Sigmas are heavy!) and/or price (Sony, Leitz). I expect Nikon to up the ante for their 24mm F1.8 s lens, or why would F-mount people even become interested? They will probably come in at the same weight as the existing lens, a bit better quality overall and 900 - 1000 Euro. Just guessing wildly LOL. Nikon has a 24mm F1.4 1 about 1900 Euro. The F1.8 lens is sharper @F2 than the F1.4 lens @F2, but the F1.4 lens has much less vignetting, yet more CA. Life is compromises.

Actually, this lens is quite excellent at all apertures. It's better than any Nikon 35 before it and better than a few 3rd party 35's. I find these reviews exaggerate the drop in performance from traditional sweet spots to wide open. It's not like it goes from a 10/10 lens at f/8 to a 3/10 lens at 1.8. It's more like a 10/10 @ 2.8 to 9.75/10 at 1.8. It's still pretty damn sharp and optically suburb at all apertures.

I based my statement solely on the test photos comparative tool. And I'm a bit spoiled with Sigma art performance. To be true I'd like to see a tiny reduction in weight compared to Sigma art tanks. But yes, it's good wide open and a bit better than others at middle apertures. I mostly use 35 a bit closed down, for me it's a most used portrait focal length. Either way we don't have any other native options for 35mm on Z mount, and this one is as good as it gets. And I don't agree on bokeh quality - IMO it's the best 35 mm out there speaking of bokeh, when you need both sharpness AND good bokeh.

in my view, photos taken with good UV filters have more brilliance and sharper look in general... especially for landscapes and nature, it helps a lot with haze in the distance. similar to polarisers, something that can't be achieved in post-processing...regards

Roger C over at LensRentals has done a lot of work on this question and the basic takeaway is that a high-quality UV filter (from the likes of B+W or Leica) does not detract from IQ, and adds a layer of protection to expensive and easily-scratched front elements. I.e., it's pretty much a win / win.

I use Hoya HD UV filters, not the best but pretty good, and always use a hood. I often have to wipe condensation or water drops off them, sometimes it's bug poop, nectar or similar. I am very careful about this only using a lens cloth and yet my filters, after some years of use, show small marks to varying degrees. These don't affect IQ, but I am glad they are on the filter, and not the front element. Then there is the requirement for my lenses, to make them dust and weather proof. No way would I want dust getting into the internal zoom mech of an EF 16-35/4.

Only using a protective filter on my zoom lenses because never using lens caps on them. Till about a year or 5 ago sometimes 'colleagues smeared vaseline on your front part (lens that is) or other smeary stuff if you had a better camera spot than them. Then it was just screwing of the filter and getting some revenge.

No, a lens hood is demonstrably NOT "all the protection you need". Lens hoods are there to block lens flare, they're useless against blown sand, branches, and anything else that might come in physical contact with the front element.

@Schorschl: I guess it depends on what you photograph.In my landscape tests I cannot see a difference in sharpness which is my main concern. A slight reduction in light levels which I can only tell from the histogram. Flare and reflections might be an issue, but they can show up without a filter too. Basically, I can't tell the difference, but get the benefits of lens protection and UV reduction.FWIW, lenses can have all sorts of crap over or in them and often this doesn't show up. I seem to remember Roger of Lens Rentals found a fly in a lens but couldn't get it to show up in testing. My resin 4 stop ND filter has a few scratches on it, I've never been able to see them when examining the shot.

Oh wow, we still need discussions about filters? I thought that all the tests that can be found online would have made it clear. Like Barney said, if you have a good filter, you won't notice any difference and you'll get more protection.

Personally, I do not use lens caps but only filters. Even scratches on the filters will not visibly deteriorate the image quality, but this enables you to take photos instantly without fiddling around with caps.

I think you misrepresent what Roger said. His message — IIRC — was exactly OPPOSITE: • Generally speaking, do not use protective filters. • In a few very specific cases when the price of replacing the front element is exorbitant — use them.

Essentially: the probability of the filter saving the lens is not large enough to make buying EXPENSIVE filters pay for it. (And CHEAP ones ruin the optical performance.) — All this from my memory, so take with a grain of salt.

Barney has not commented (as I said earlier) Nikon stopped making UV over 15 years ago, Canon changes their guidance to restricting UV use to B&W film last century, and some UV restrict colour gamut at the magenta and blue end of the spectrum. In addition flat surface filters (as distinct from meniscus) are able to cause highlight reflections from the back of the filter on to the sensor, and insurance usually costs less and provides more protection than a front filter.If anybody chooses to use a filter - that is fine - but my advice is use the right tool for the job - which is a clear filter.

Summary:- front elements tend to cost a LOT more compared to the cost of a new lens than they used to- a bad filter degrades image quality- a front element with a small scratch might slightly degrade image quality, BUT- that scratch has a dramatic and negative effect on resale value.- Roger recommends a cost/benefit based choice for lens filters

If you don’t read anything else, read the last paragraph of his entry.

There are times when protective filter comes handy, like shooting racing where there is risk of debris hitting the lens or shooting situations where weather resistance is needed to protect the front element from sea water, beverages and flying glasses and beer bottles. For everything else the lens hood reigns supreme.

@ilza: non-nuanced, black/white responses don’t help and stopping there as you suggest is nonsensical. Roger created a very well-thought-out discussion of the pros and cons of using filters, setting out where it makes sense to use them and where it might not. Others in this thread have similarly recounted their own reasons.

His saying “no” was not a blanket statement about all circumstances, only a statement that neither are they never needed, nor are they always needed. And then he goes on to discuss his arguments.

This black/white nonsense has to stop sometime. It is destroying nuanced discussion and reducing everything to polar extremes.

First of all: Wrong. His “NO” was a blanket statement. Just read what he said.

However, this blanket “No” was a BLANKET NEGATION of a possibility of BLANKET statement. With at least “C−−” in reading comprehension, one would see that his “NO” does not mean “Never”. So, in some sense, it is “nuanced” as well.

Second: I can see that now you essentially start saying (almost?) EXACTLY what I have been saying from the beginning: Roger never recommended to “use filters”. Most of the time, you should not. There are exceptional situations — and the lens in question FOR A PARTICULAR USAGE SCENARIO may be such an exception.

Is there a reason now to continue this discussion? I do not see one. (Well, you may want to apologize, hint hint ;-].)

Roger states that they have tons of lenses with scratched front elements, and repairing them costs about as much as a whole lens on eBay. It means that front elements ARE getting scratched beyond tolerable limits, despite using hoods, caps and so on. So everyone makes his own choice regarding the protective filters, how and when these shall be used.

Of course comparing the two is fair, it’s the only reason this site exists. God put you on earth to help readers sort out the tradeoffs in resolution, color, size, weight, price etc. between System A and System B. It is simply not permissible to throw up your hands and say “not fair” as if that was that. You and the rest of the bewhiskered band of misfits (plus the two women) in Seattle are the only people with the access to enough equipment and experience in the industry to be able to efficiently and succinctly explain what is gained and what is lost when switching from that 24mp camera and lens to the 46mp camera.

piratejabez gave a kind and helpful comment. I'm the only one that gave him an upvote. The smart ass comment which, itself, was useless got TONS of thumbs ups. Seems like that's a good reflection of our modern society. What a shame.

@DougDolde, OK so you shoot at 28mm. I prefer the 50mm (when using a prime). Everyone has their preferences. And quite frankly, as long as you're satisfied with what you're getting and it works for your composition/work, it doesn't matter what FL you or anyone else uses. I sort of don't understand this "distaste" for things simply because someone doesn't use it. Fine. To each his own I guess.

But as @piratejabez mentions, you should maybe consider shooting with one, if at the least, to give your photos perhaps a different perspective.

It was more or less an example to be honest. I don't use the 50mm (which is my only prime at the moment) except in really low light, which is maybe 2-3 times per year. Yes it has a narrow FOV compared to the 35mm (which is more suited, IMO, to general photography).

I think the author may be confused with those that point out that the working distance of wider lenses required to sufficiently fill the frame for portraits produce perspective distortion, not the focal length. Even the examples shown here prove that out when you compare the 3 consecutive shots of the young lady and her facial features do not appear the same.

The Sony FE 35/1.8 is probably the fastest to focus 35mm prime we've tested. It's faster by a fair margin.

Also, the Nikon 35/1.8 G lens on a D850 is faster to focus than the 35/1.8 S on the Z7, though this is probably primarily due to the DSLR bodies, since the 35/1.8 G focuses at about the same speed as the 35/1.8 S on the Z7. Still, the end result is that the 35/1.8 G on a Nikon DSLR will give you slightly faster AF.

We did have a suite of our own tests, many years ago, before switching to use DxO data which we did for a while. Both approaches had advantages, and (in some cases severe) disadvantages. Ultimately, by focusing more on real-world shooting and ad-hoc real-world side-by-side tests, we hope that we're presenting more relevant results to photographers, as well as just getting lens reviews written and put onto the site, which we weren't always able to do with a useful regularity in the past.

If there's anything specific that you miss which we're not replicating, let me know! We're always looking at ways to improve these reviews.

As a Nikon (and Fuji) user, I miss the ability to view comparisons with lenses I might actually own and would consider using the 35 f/1.8S instead of, such as the 35 f/1.8G (with FTZ). Comparing a Nikon lens to a Canon and two Sony lenses is clearly more useful for those considering which system to buy into (or perhaps those who are insecure about their choice, or who like bragging rights, or who own several similar systems and are deciding which to build out with what). But we can't expect DPReview to do everything and, probably like many of us here, I will do some comparisons on my own.

It probably requires a ton of work but I'd love to see more varied direct comparisons between lenses with more scenes, particularly when it comes to bokeh, all the more so for areas of bokeh performance that are rarely properly assessed in reviews. A good example of such scenes is in that comparison between various Sigma lenses on Sony cameras : https://phillipreeve.net/blog/comparison-sigma-art-35mm-1-2-35mm-1-4-and-40mm-1-4/#Bokeh.These scenes show a lot of things that a typical bokeh balls test wouldn't (for example how the poorer correction of some field dependent aberrations - astigmatism ? - on the Sigma 35 1.4 affects bokeh vs. the 1.2).

And then we usually have to reshoot it because of one technical error on one shot ;)

MayaTlab0: That's indeed a very good comparison, and I'm a fan of BastianK's work. We've had many discussions about a standard bokeh scene, but it's very hard to design one for focal length's covering 24-85mm (most common primes), let alone 24-200mm.

I've even had trouble recreating the horrendous donut-hole bokeh of the Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA I see in the real world in the lab. I can recreate the onion rings with out-of-focus highlights that aren't very defocused, but some artifacts you see in the real world are very difficult to recreate in a standardized manner.

We'll keep brainstorming ideas, and always feel free to PM us with any thoughts / ideas you may have!

No particular idea other than :- Seattle's cloudy weather is a b.... for outdoor comparisons apparently (I've got the same here, I know the pain). - I think that a bokeh lab scene has a good chance of being a waste of time or to become so time consuming that you may as well make 50 outdoors scenes in the meantime. I believe that only through focus pinpoint light source tests throughout the frame may be truly valuable but the workload will be a killer and then you'll get comments such as "what does it mean in the real world". Even Marianne's thread here (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515) was more of a very interesting discussion rather than a test per se.

And :- I'd focus on finding methodologies and test scenes locations that can enable you to work faster. Maybe you're already doing it, but, for example, while it looked initially slower and more cumbersome, I went more rapidly through the process of evaluating lenses in real life scenes with tethering than without (iPad could help here ?). But that was with the same body and most of the time the same lens (just several copies of it), so exposure was easy (I notice that the 35mm 1.8 FE may not be exposed quite as brightly as the others for example), and live view CDAF was reliable in the case of the bodies / lenses combinations that I evaluated, but it may not be always so.

But the world desperately needs you, DPreview people. I've only rarely seen a good comparison between lenses in regards to the impact of field dependent aberrations (the four lenses above should be very different in that regard off centre and not in a subtle way) or the management of spherical aberration on bokeh.

I'm considering purchasing a used Sony Zeiss 35 2.8. It's expensive new, hence buying used, and it's far from perfect, but it's sharp. The reason, it's tiny. I like Nikons and think the new Z system has some interesting opportunities, but I would never buy a this big 35 1.8 lens even if it was half the price. Sony has lost their way a bit on lens sizes as well, since seemingly having it as a priority when starting FF mirrorless. It's my opinion a 35mm lens should be small if it isn't 1.4. Nikon think a bit outside the box and fast.

I did just that last week, waiting on the adapter and the 35mm to come in. It does seem like the size benefits of mirrorless have been completely forgotten by Nikon and Canon with no similar lenses on the horizon. I want the benefit of FF with the convenience of portable lenses that I can carry around all day. Hoping Rokinon brings their lenses over to the Z-mount soon as well.

About 75% of the frame is VERY sharp wide open with the Sammie 2.8/35 (same for the Zony).

The bokeh isn't great, nor is it bad either, I find using it for subjects at mid distance fantastic, still enough separation, sharpness, contrast and the CA is minor, so minor I rarely bother to work the raw to remove it, I only find it an issue if I've pulled the shadows and highlights aggressively.

I paid US$275 for it and that is a steal imo.My most used lens by a significant margin.

As a proud owner of Z6 with the kit S24-70/4 and the new S50/1.8 (altogether plus FTZ for 2500 euro a few weeks ago) I am extremely impressed by the sharpness of the kit lens and the low light performance of Z6. And the 50/1.8 is better than anything 50mm I've tried before, incl. Nikkor 50/1.8G. I will probably skip the 35/1.8, although it looks great to me, and will get the new 24/1.8 and 85/1.8 when they are discounted next summer. Coming from Dslr, the only annoyances to me are the XQD card, which is ridiculously expensive and the battery life, which is a bit shorter than what I am used to.

Guys guys. Change your attitude, change your life.... you're talking about buying a $2500 camera, $600 lens plus whatever other gear you have. What's another $130 for a memory card. It's really not that expensive. When I had a D80, I bought a 512 MB card for $80. Now we have 32GB for $50 more. Currently, the fastest SD card is similarly priced to XQD and is still faster.

Well, in my country it is 200 euro for a single 64 Gb XQD card. Then I will be comfortable if I have at least 3 cards with me. This makes it 600 euro. It is not negligible. It is almost the cost of a new S lens. I am not interested in 4K video, certainly not in 30-min 4K videos, so I do not need the XQD advantages. I love the size and the quality (sharpness, low light) of Z, this is why I am into it. I think Nikon made a mistake of putting a single XQD card there. It should have been 2 slots - one XQD and one SD - to leave the customers with more options and to open up to more kinds of customers.

With all the talk about single card slots, I’m surprised anyone wants more than minimum capacity for photo storage. I started digital with one card slot. You learned to minimize risk by getting several smaller capacity cards and switch more often. A 32GB XQD on a Z6 shooting in 14 bit RAW yields around 600 shots. 64GB is 1200+. So you seem to be contradictory in that you want two slots yet are willing to put 1200 photos on one card. Other than weddings, I never get to a point of filling a card on a single day. I spent 2 weeks in Ethiopia earlier this year and only dipped into a 2nd 32GB card at the end of the trip. And no one said you have to buy 3 64GB cards on day one. Get one, and as your needs increase buy another. Spread out the payments as it were.

I don't care about what he could say, especially after his remarks towards Sony users, not very professional for my taste. And yes, he could be a celebrity/legend/eminence/god of cameras but still acts like a troll.

@ ZeBebito - Roger has a professional relationship with Sony and is held in universal respect at all levels of leadership within every camera and lens maker that I've spoken to (ie., pretty well all of them).

@Barney I am talking about when he refers to Sony users as Sony ”fanboys”, with a series of remarks about their attitudes. I don’t have the specific article but we had a pretty heated discussion here a couple of months ago actually. Maybe Ozturert or some other fellow member brought that up.

I respect Roger's expertise and he provides a valuable (and free) resource in his blog, but I agree, his remarks about Sony users don't reflect well on him. I realise that's not a harmonious thing to say, but it's pointless to pretend he hasn't been very insulting, and only to users of one brand.

Well, on https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-35mm-f1-8-s/4 this lens receives the glorious score 4.8/5. Obviously, the assessment is rather subjective. I am nonetheless a little puzzled by the conclusions here about CA given that the comparison of the four lenses shows terrible CA for the two Sony's and even some CA for the Canon, but no visible CA for Z. Moreover, comparing lenses which differ in price by a factor of 3, and in weight by a factor of 2 is a bit strange. I would rather say: if the 3 times cheaper Z is comparable to the F1.4 lenses then it is really a great gear.

Our conclusions were about longitudinal chromatic aberration, visible behind and in front of the plane of focus. Here the Canon excels, followed by the Nikon and FE 35/1.8 (both show it, and it can be distracting, but there's not a huge difference between the two), with the Sony FE 35/1.4 faring the worst (heavily distracting).

That's an indictment. The "promise" of Z system and S line seems as good as average politicians promise. Sure it's good stuff, for a price, that will normalize in price and system be 'fleshed out' over time.

Why not faster version at same price or little more! Or smaller and simpler fewer element primes at moderate cost possible? Did they change glass formulas more and have to rely on advanced coatings and more aspherical elements to cope?

Faster at the same price or a little more? From Nikon? You're kidding, right? Yes, the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is a little more but it's also enormous and from Sigma. Nikon only rarely plays in the "good value" arena and won't dare with their new mount nor with professional-grade lenses.

Smaller and simpler with fewer elements at a moderate cost? Probably because the performance wasn't what they wanted for the Z6 and Z7.

Of course, now I can't really get a Nikkor 24 or 35 1 4 , so can't expect S equivalents to be bargains. Don't need those much though as not pro. I could trade in some of my stuff (-even only the Sony set up) up and keep all my Nikon gear to go mirrorless Z 6 now. Not more than that. But how confident could I be only using my Gs adapted?

Z 6 could be for me later in 2019. We await a rumoured D750 replacement and even more fanciful 'DX mirrorless' Waiting into early next year seems prudent even as my gear trade-in values decline. I don't want to go to Sony FF and using a6300 rarely. Most expensive I have not used yet is AFS 24-70 G got used, the 14-24 2.8 FX would have been a better choice for use, and no way too bad 70-200 pro lens. So, am not buying into rest of the 'trinity' . Actually I have my eye on good smartphone upgrade so I have to choose. Thanks. . That's it for now on this.

I was using the tamron 35 f1.8 all weekend with adapter. No need for me to get a this, so i will save for another s lens (eager to to see the 50 f1.2 price). I hate duplicating buying the same lens I already have. I am not the type that will sell a perfectly good lens just to keep up. I just add newer focal length lenses to the collection.

Thanks. This one is 370g and Tamron us 450g. Tamron has 0.38 magnification vs 0.19 on the S. Size wise, both are similar. But how does the performance compare... Lenstip review concluded that Tamron had moderate Longitudinal CA and very low Lateral CA

Sony 35 1.8 was considered overpriced. Now another 35 1.8 lens at $850. No wonder Nikon sales are stagnating and will go down even more. 100 years in camera business and Nikon is already behind the ones you would laugh at 5 years ago. Must replace old fossil management to be more progressive or seek extinction.

@milkod2001Do I need to look at your gear list???Wow, what a surprise, a Sony shooter on a Nikon article!!!Funny, you didn't mention the overpriced Sony 55, which you own, but gets absolutely spanked by the much less expensive Nikon Z 50 1.8S. :)

@NexLupus - since you brought it up... I agree that the fe55 is overpriced, and I like what Nikon did with the 50/1.8s, however:

1) the sony fe55 is much lighter than the Nikon lens:fe55: 281g50/1.8s: 415g

2) the sony fe55 is a true 15fps af-c, while Nikon 50/1.8s af speed is, well, see what dpr had to say: "Autofocus actuation from the stepping motor isn't as fast as Nikon's snappiest F-mount zooms with more powerful ring-type AF motors, but it's at least as fast as most of the company's older primes"

3) "Sony's tiny FE 55mm F1.8 ZA is an astonishingly sharp lens, even at F1.8 (it actually has a very slight edge over the Z Nikkor wide open)"

Ahh MILC,Wondered when you would show up.The other Sony employees have already been working this Nikon article for hours...are you working the Sony night shift?

And to bring the point back on message... the Nikon Z 501.8S spanks the Sony equivalent; so it's interesting how the OP didn't mention this in his troll post, considering that he owns that lens.Kinda like the Sony 70-200 2.8 gets spanked terribly by the Nikon and Canon, but I'm sure you know this already :) A lens so bad Roger Cicala made this unprecedented comment; "I work with Sony. I like Sony. But I despise this lens in case you can’t tell; if you gave me one, I’d sell it the next day. I try to be impartial, but with this lens, I’m not, and I know it. The optical bench, however, is unbiased."https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/07/just-the-mtf-charts-70-200mm-f2-8-zooms/

@AnuluYou are so tiring, LOL...I believe many have already explained this to you in the past...Everyone, and I mean everyone knows that DXOmark is a garbage review site that does not have a credible data, as has been shown many times.

@NexLupusI can work with any brand. Don;t suffer from any brand loyalty. I went through: Canon 350D, 40D, 5D2, through Nikon D750 to current Sony A7R3. The moment i see brand im using is no longer offering extra features im ready to let it go.Regarding Zeiss 55 1.8, yes, it is indeed a bit overpriced but that's Zeiss thing to do. Nikon 50 1.8 seems great lens, better than Sigma 50 1.4 which used to be benchmark for 50mm lenses.

The Sony 55/1.8 is a 7 element lens with no LD glasses - inevitably it performs worse in handling LoCa than the 50/1.8 S.

The Nikon 50/1.8S is a 12 element lens with 2 LD glasses. As far as I know it's the only 12 element 50/1.8 ever made. If Sony made a 12 element f1.8 50 with LD glass it would be as good or better than the Nikon. You have to compare apples to apples.

@RubberdialsWHAAAT?So I can come back and say that if the Nikon made a 15 element lens then it would be better than the Sony 12 and so on and so on.How does that even make sense.Bottom line, the Nikon is better, stop being a Sony apologist.On another note, the Sony 35mm seems to not even be a 35 and more like a 40 or more...Sony and their games, LOL

You need to understand guys that Zeiss 55 1.8 was made by Zeiss for Sony hence steep price. Also at times it was introduced there was not any other native alternative which came close to its performance at that size and weight. It is still great lens but these days it probably isn't flying off shelves. Im planning to replace it with Zeiss 50 1.4. 55 1.8 is great but you need to help it in post to get most of it. It doesn't have this pop/rendering as Zeiss 50 1.4 or Sony GM lenses.

I recently purchased a brand new Zony FE 55mm from a local camera store for $899 (Australian) during a Sony promotion (that's $608 U.S).Seems like a reasonable price to me, certainly not "steep" as you stated.Den

More about gear in this article

We've just returned from two launch events for Nikon's new Z system - one in New York, and one in Tokyo. After spending a little more time with two more pre-production cameras, we've updated our previously-published samples gallery.

Nikon has laid out its ambitious plans for the next three years of Z-mount lenses. The most eye-catching is a 58mm F0.95 'Noct' lens and, naturally, standard focal lengths such as an 85mm F1.8, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8 will be appearing in due course, as well.

You can't launch a new camera system without lenses, and Nikon has three Nikkor Z-mount lenses available at and slightly after the launch of the Z 7 and Z 6. They include a 24-70 F4 S, 50mm F1.8 S and 35mm F1.8 S.

Nikon's new Z-mount marks a major departure for the company, which (barring the short-lived 1-Series) for almost 60 years has relied on the 1950s-era F-mount for its interchangeable lens cameras. In this article we go hands-on with the first three 'Z' lenses: the 24-70 F4, 35mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.